International relations theory and Japanese pacifism: Why didn’t Tokyo go ballistic over North Korean nukes?

Seen from the perspectives of the various Western theories of international relations, Japan’s peculiar armed pacifism can appear very different. Prominent neorealists have predicted that Japan will inevitably develop nuclear weapons; prominent liberals have cited Japan as the model pacifist nation of the future. Over the last five years, it became clear to Japan that North Korea either possessed, or was on the brink of acquiring, nuclear weapons. How would the Japanese government respond to such a critical threat to its security? The case of North Korean nukes suggests that policymakers should be wary of the grim expectations of Western neorealists, at least in regard to Japan.     

Interactive Policy Development: Undermining or Sustaining Democracy?

The question can be raised whether the principal effect of interactive policy development is to shore up a (creaking) democratic system or to destabilize its very foundations. In this article, a framework is presented for assessing the democratic credentials of interactive policy development. It is based on four views on how a democracy should work: instrumental or substantial democracy and direct or indirect democracy. Critics and advocates differ in their confidence that the intended aims can ever be realized. Based on extensive case study material of interactive local policy development projects collected between 1997 and 2001, the validity of the various arguments for or against interactive policy-making is analysed. The analysis indicates that whether interactive policy development undermines or sustains democracy depends principally on the extent to which divergences in the expectations of the various groups are made explicit and unrealistic or mistaken expectations are dispelled.     

Left-wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries

A sometimes heated debate between authoritarianism researchers takes place on the issue of authoritarianism on the left. Some researchers argue that authoritarianism is typical for right-wing political orientation while other researchers assert that authoritarianism can also be found at the left side of the political spectrum. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we aim to contribute to the ongoing discussion on left-wing authoritarianism. Using representative samples, the relationship between authoritarianism and political preferences is examined in 13 ex-communist Eastern European countries. Employing six different indicators of left-wing/communist political orientations make clear that, despite cross-national differences, left-wing authoritarianism is definitely not a myth in Eastern European countries. Second, it was aimed to survey whether authoritarian persons in Eastern European countries might be a possible threat for the transition to democracy. Based upon five items it was demonstrated that in general the Eastern European population seems to hold a positive opinion on democracy. However, it becomes also clear that authoritarian persons in the ex-communist countries are significantly less positive towards democracy.     

Book Review: Game Theory and the Transformation of Family Law by Kenneth H Waldron and Allan R. Koritzinsky

In this book, Waldron and Koritzinsky, provide a stimulating and interesting new way of understanding the impact of traditional approaches to divorce on families and divorcees. They ask whether the structure of divorce can be altered so that the payoff systems for a divorcing couple lead toward a more constructive and cooperative approach. Waldron and Koritzinsky encourage us to understand how what appears to be irrational behavior actually makes sense when you analyze the payoffs built into the divorce process and argue that we can change that system to reward more constructive behavior. They also urge us to look at subjective payoffs as well as objective outcomes. Their application of game theory yields rich insights to divorce practitioners, but it is important to remember that a rational actor model can only go so far in explaining the complexities and variations of the divorce process.     

Can We Talk? What We Have Learned About How to Have Productive Conflicts About Family Policy and Family Law

How we handle professional conflicts affects our capacity to help others in conflict. Two AFCC dialogues, one about domestic violence, the other about shared parenting, illustrate the challenges of taking on professional differences. The former resulted in considerable consensus. The latter involved a frank exchange of differences but little overall consensus. It was, however, an important beginning of a critical conversation. Other issues calling out for constructive conflict engagement, include the crisis in providing access to justice for family litigants who cannot afford legal representation. Professional groups must move beyond defending their own self interests to addressing this crisis.